Regarding questions:

feminist-supportive questions still belong in /r/Feminism, but those questioning or criticizing feminism should direct their discussions here.

Regarding direct answers:

Please observe our rule regarding top-level comments: first responses (all top level comments) in threads here should come from feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective, though all such responses can be challenged / debated; for clarifications regarding this, please see below.

This is a place to ask feminists your questions and to discuss the issues with feminists. If you've wondered what most feminists think about certain things, what our response is to certain issues, how we think certain things should be handled, or why we have adopted the positions and stands that we have, this is your place to get your questions answered! Or if you have feedback or ideas and would like a feminist response to your thoughts, this is a place to have that discussion.

Posting rules:

Remember to use common sense when formulating questions; inane / insulting / baiting topics will be removed: /r/AskFeminists is not a space to put guilt by association on all feminists due to the actions done by X persons or groups, especially when such actions are in contradiction with feminism or basic common sense. Come with an open mind and a willingness to consider another's perspective, and build some bridges! Please avoid using loaded questions; verifiable sources should be added for claims included in the title/OP.

External articles can be a topic of discussion. The more explicit the question is (the more detailed the self-post is), the better the answers/discussions will be. Generic questions will likely receive generic answers/no answer at all.

The rule concerning direct answers (which should come from feminists, and the answers should to be consistent with feminism) apply to the person posting the thread as well: all the needed clarifications should be made in the original post, which would make them visible to all, and not in the comments.

As for rules and policies - the number one rule is, be nice! As usual, no sexism, anti-egalitarianism, bigotry, hate, intolerance, offensive or antagonistic speech, or off-topic discussion, all of this may be subject to removal. The basic content rules from r/Feminism's FAQ apply, with the following changes in this subreddit:

I could see it a couple ways. From my MRA perspective, it's giving women special status above men and perpetuates male disposability culture. I could also see it interpreted as comparing women to children, implying weakness. Both are offensive to me. Is it offensive to you as well?

Of course there are more variables to consider as well. The fact that most people don't see any bias with that statement, because in general, society has more empathy for women. The same society that taught me that ladies first and paying on dates are what men who respect women do. But now I see chivalry as sexist, as it works against men, and again implies women are weak and needy.

tl;dr Gender biased news reports stick out to me. Do they stick out to you too? Why do you think it happens? Do you see it both ways like I do, or just one, or completely different ways I haven't thought of?

The news is horseshit these days anyways, it's always trying to make an emotional story out of these events, so by bringing up women and children, these "defenseless victims," it's trying to draw an empathic chord with its viewers. It's mildly offensive to me from both a feminist and a journalistic perspective, but I don't watch enough news reports to encounter this often.

Of course it stands out. Grouping a class of adults alongside children is obviously really offensive, to both sexes. It is much like the chivalry stuff, which as you mention, both unfairly burdens men and reinforces the idea that women are or should be dependent.

It's depressing and rage-inducing, but such is life in the patriarchy.

You perspective is skewed. It is special status, but that status is actually bellow men - women and children as especially frail and delicate, those who need protection from big, strong, able men. It's an extremely patriarchal notion, one that was once accompanied by laws that actually put women and children in the same category. Now we got rid of those laws, but the notion is still there. And it is offensive.

The adult women are literally being highlighted alongside children-- defenseless, innocent children that need adults to take care of them. And, as VegetablePaste mentioned, there's a history of women being put, legally and culturally, in the same category as children.

The adult women are literally being highlighted alongside children-- defenseless, innocent children that need adults to take care of them.

So.. highlighting two groups simultaneously means that the group must share a specific trait, the one you're thinking of, and not something else?

You know something else that women and children have in common? People find their deaths more shocking than men's. The entire point of these headlines is to make it sound worse - "oh no! women died, not just men!". Twenty men die in a fishing boat accident? That sucks, but it happens all the time (120 men die per year in the fishing industry, I believe. That may also just be US men as I don't think we'd have records for a lot of places). But 20 women die in a fire at... I don't know, a women's club or something? A lot worse, national headlines for weeks.

You presumably believe that the reason women's deaths are thought of as worse has something to do with their being thought of as weak (following from your comment), but I have asked at least a dozen people making that argument to justify it and never received a legitimate argument (usually a couple of posts of bullshit without any explanation, just restating the claim and pointing out other areas with a similar paradigm).

I believe that the argument "women's deaths are thought of as worse because women are thought of as weak" is invalid. I don't think there's a connection, it's a non-sequitar. If you disagree and can justify it I'd love to hear it.

This is kind of a "female inferiority vs male disposability" thing - a ton of feminist arguments are justified with the former when the latter can explain it just as well (and in my opinion, a lot better in many (such as this one)).

Children's deaths are thought of as worse/ more cause for moral indignancy because they're considered weak, helpless, innocent, incapable of defending or taking care of themselves. (I mean, there's also the "they never got to grow up" thing, but the media routinely emphasizes how helpless kids are in addition to that.)

The entire point of my comment was to say I disagree with that argument. "I have asked at least a dozen people making that argument to justify it and never received a legitimate argument (usually a couple of posts of bullshit without any explanation, just restating the claim and pointing out other areas with a similar paradigm)." - you just restated it.

If the argument "the more helpless something is, the more it matters when they ie" were true then we'd all be getting teary eyed over dead frogs and shit. Yes, groups thought of as helpless tend to be more highly valued, but I view that as a correlation caused by separate factors - if it were causational, there shouldn't be so many exceptions, and somebody should be able to provide a valid argument as to what that relationship is. Seriously, I want to know.

You were completely refuting the relevance of the helpless/defenseless portion of the argument and saying that the only thing child/female deaths had in common was greater shock value. You questioned how I reconciled the two aspects of my two comments. I was explaining it to you. I also proposed an argument. Explain to me the inconsistencies between the parallels I drew between women and children and then I'll understand better why you take issues with this. Do you disagree with my argument as relating to just children, or just women, or both children and women, and how?

You're also confusing emotional affect with social value. They're not the same thing. Youtube videos of puppies making friends with kittens inspire a strong affective response but that doesn't mean we value puppies and kittens over humans.

Edit: Also, we do get teary eyed all the time about puppies and kittens, there's frequently outrage in the news about maltreated puppies or cats being dropped into trash cans. That stuff is always instant hot news, because inspires strong affective emotions of indignation in us. It's difficult for us to empathize with frogs because they're not furry, warm mammals.

saying that the only thing child/female deaths had in common was greater shock value.

I said it's the only thing they had in common that is relevant to the reason it has greater media emphasis.

You questioned how I reconciled the two aspects of my two comments.

W-which aspects?

Explain to me the inconsistencies between the parallels I drew between women and children

I agree that there is a parallel in that both groups are viewed as weak and helpless.

I do not believe that is the reason why their deaths have greater importance.

Youtube videos of puppies making friends with kittens inspire a strong affective response but that doesn't mean we value puppies and kittens over humans.

Right... I don't see how my comments are mixing this up, though.

Er, I should actually elaborate; I do believe that helplessness is a factor in how we feel about the deaths of things, but that it's not the only factor. Rats are pretty helpless, but we hate the little bastards and are glad when they die. Thus, there must be other factors as to why women's and children's deaths matter more besides society's views on their capability for self-management.

Sorry, I edited my earlier response as you posted. I don't think it's just helplessness that inspires an affective response, but helplessness that we can empathize with. (Affect, after all, is psychologically linked to empathy.) Rats have been maligned by society for being pests for centuries; we haven't really come around to empathizing with them. Puppies and kittens being maltreated, on the other hand, we're always up in arms, and the dailymail will inevitably write some article about it.

For your first few posts, I didn't realize that you were arguing a specific position because you didn't lay it out fully. I was answering your questions as if they were clarifying ones (since this is a subreddit geared towards hearing feminist viewpoints), not cross-debating ones. I'm not really in the mood right now for getting into an extensive debate about our respective positions, but I do agree that helplessness isn't the sole factor involved in these cases. (Like I mentioned, there's always that thing with kids and how "they didn't even have a chance to grow up.") However, I do think perceptions of female helplessness have significantly shaped our social understanding of gender roles/ chivalry, and I do think it's at play in the rhetoric that the OP highlights.